Actually, it has everything to do with pre-humans and previous bone 
fragments because they are calling it the missing link that proves 
evolution.  Which is a ridiculous statement.

jm
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Collins" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Evolutionary Missing Link


> Shawn Gordon wrote:
>> I'm with you Jim, they make so many crazy extrapolations.  One thing I 
>> notice about these discovery articles is they never mention what method 
>> they used to date this stuff, I'd really like to know myself.
>>
>> Here is what I'd really like to see, and maybe Wirt knows where one is 
>> since he is up on this stuff.  I'd like to see a global map that shows 
>> where various pre-humans have been found, the number of intact skeletons 
>> for that branch or whatever else was used to make the determination. 
>> I've heard stories of a jaw bone being found 5 miles from an arm and then 
>> that is used to determine homo-interuptus or something as a whole new 
>> pre-homo sapien.
>
> Of course this article has nothing to do with pre-humans or bone 
> fragments. This was a fossil find and "Within two weeks, they uncovered 
> three nearly complete specimens of the ancient creature."
>
> For information on the accuracy of fossil dating you could try google, 
> which turned up this page:
>
> http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
> 

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *